University of Dayton
eCommons
Political Science Faculty Publications
Department of Political Science
7-2016
Will the Vice Presidential Candidates Matter this
Year? Maybe, But Not the Way You Think
Kyle C. Kopko
Elizabethtown College
Christopher J. Devine
University of Dayton, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/pol_fac_pub
Part of the American Politics Commons, Civic and Community Engagement Commons, and the
Demography, Population, and Ecology Commons
eCommons Citation
Kopko, Kyle C. and Devine, Christopher J., "Will the Vice Presidential Candidates Matter this Year? Maybe, But Not the Way You
Think" (2016). Political Science Faculty Publications. 89.
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/pol_fac_pub/89
This News Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Political Science at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Political Science Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected],
[email protected].
Academic rigor, journalistic flair
Will the vice presidential candidates matter this year?
Maybe, but not the way you think.
July 12, 2016 8.54pm EDT
Hillary Clinton with vice presidential hopeful Julian Castro. Reuters/Darren Abate
Veepstakes speculation is rampant as we approach the national conventions for both
Authors
major political parties.
Media reports have detailed the wide array of options available to Donald Trump and
Hillary Clinton as they decide who will be their number twos for this campaign, and
perhaps for four or eight years to come.
Kyle C. Kopko
Associate Professor of Political Science,
Elizabethtown College
Who will Trump and Clinton pick? That depends on each candidate’s goals – both
for the remainder of the presidential campaign and after Nov. 8. Political observers
widely agree that the most important characteristic to look for in a running mate is
the ability to serve as president in the event of unforeseen circumstances, like a
president’s death, incapacitation, resignation or impeachment.
Christopher Devine
Assistant Professor of Political Science,
University of Dayton
However, when campaign staff and trusted political advisers vet potential running
mates, they are certain to also weigh political considerations. That is, whether a
given running mate will help or hurt the presidential ticket, with voters in general or
with a key voting group. Particularly if the campaign is at a competitive disadvantage, its strategists
may look to the running mate as a potential “game changer.”
The electoral advantage most commonly associated with vice presidential candidates is geographic.
In other words, they are expected to deliver their home state or region in the Electoral College. But do
they actually deliver?
Usually not.
In our book, “The VP Advantage: How Running Mates Influence Home State Voting in Presidential Elections,” we employed a multi­method approach to empirically test the purported home state
advantage. We used both state­level election returns since 1884 and individual­level survey data
since 1952 in our analysis. Ultimately, we found no evidence of a general vice presidential home state
advantage, on average.
Based upon the data, it is unlikely that Hillary Clinton’s or Donald Trump’s running mate will deliver
a crucial battleground state, like Ohio or Virginia. Instead, the presidential candidates would be wise
to select a respected running mate who can effectively serve as vice president.
Mythbusting: VP influence
Survey data and internal campaign polls from 1960 even cast serious doubt on the “fact” that Lyndon
Johnson delivered Texas and the South for Democratic presidential candidate John Kennedy that
year. Although presidential candidates typically receive an electoral advantage in their home state,
our findings for vice presidential candidates suggest a conditional relationship.
Such advantages are most likely to occur in less populous states where a running mate has significant
elected political experience within that state. The vice presidential candidacies of Maine’s Edmund
Muskie (1968) and Delaware’s Joe Biden (2008, 2012), both political “institutions” in their small
home states, serve as perfect examples.
How about demographic appeal, then? Will a running mate deliver votes from a targeted
demographic group – say, based on gender or religion – if she also belongs to that group? To find out,
in a recent analysis we tested whether women (1984 and 2008), Catholic (1972, 1984, 2008, and
2012), and Jewish (2000) voters were more likely to vote for a presidential ticket that included a vice
president from the same demographic group. Once again, running mates failed to deliver as expected.
True, voters more positively evaluated vice presidential candidates who belonged to their
demographic group. But this did not change votes. Women, for instance, were no more likely than in
other years to vote for a ticket featuring a woman as running mate, and the same generally goes for
religious minorities.
While there’s a great deal of speculation that Hillary Clinton will select a Hispanic running mate,
partly in hopes of increasing her vote share among Hispanics, this evidence suggests that she should
not expect such an advantage. Of course, she may perform better among Hispanics for other reasons,
namely opposition to Donald Trump’s candidacy.
Do VP’s even matter?
So, are vice presidential candidates electorally irrelevant? No, far from it.
Campaigns could use a running mate as a means to reinforce a campaign theme or foster party unity.
Ted Cruz selecting Carly Fiorina as his seven­day running mate, for example, reinforced Cruz’s
campaign brand of a political outsider who would shake up Washington.
In 1976, Ronald Reagan used his vice presidential pick to
attempt to unify the warring factions of his party and pick
up uncommitted delegates at the Republican National Convention. It backfired when he announced Sen. Richard
Schweiker of Pennsylvania would be his running mate, which
provoked a strong reaction from Sen. Jesse Helms and other
Donald Trump with vice presidential hopeful,
conservatives. Gerald Ford got the nomination that year.
Chris Christie. REUTERS/Mike Stone
Four years later, Reagan considered the possibility of
inviting Ford back to the ticket as his running mate in what some dubbed a co­presidency. Instead he
offered the vice presidential slot to his relatively moderate primary opponent, George H.W. Bush.
Indeed, the empirical evidence suggests that running mates have a modest, but measurable influence
on presidential vote choice. In our book, we used data from the American National Election Studies
and found that evaluations of presidential candidates are three times more influential than
evaluations of running mates, when explaining voter choice.
Remember, voters must choose between presidential tickets, and not just presidential candidates.
That’s why VP candidates have some level of influence on voters, albeit small relative to the
presidential candidates. This means a vice presidential candidate may strengthen or weaken overall
evaluations of the ticket to the extent that he or she is very appealing or very unappealing to voters.
The major takeaway from our findings is this: If a running mate is exceedingly popular or unpopular
relative to the presidential candidate, then they could marginally influence vote choice at a national
level.
Typically, this does not happen. When vetting running mates, most campaigns take a “do no harm”
approach and ensure that the vice presidential pick will not detract from the presidential candidate.
Most vice presidential candidates are not exceptionally popular or unpopular. Many are simply unknown to voters.
Of course, there are exceptions. For example, political science research has estimated that Sarah Palin
may have cost John McCain as many as 2.1 million votes in 2008 due to her unpopularity among
moderate voters. At the same time, however, Palin energized the conservative base and motivated some voters to support McCain who otherwise would have stayed home on Election Day.
Setting expectations for 2016
What does all of this mean for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016? Given that both
candidates have historically high unfavorable ratings after winning exceptionally divisive party
nomination campaigns, a vice presidential candidate could influence voters more in 2016 than in a
typical election year.
If Clinton or Trump select a running mate who is also unpopular, while the other selects one with
high or even neutral favorability among voters, the latter could make a positive and meaningful
contribution to the overall ticket.
Perhaps, then, this is the year that vice presidential selections will make a difference – not by
delivering a key state or voting bloc, but by enhancing the popularity of a presidential ticket that
desperately needs the help.

Republicans
Democrats
US presidents
2016 US Presidential Election